From: John Maddock (John_Maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-02-24 06:58:33
>Comments? Is the above at least headed in the right direction?<
Yes, certainly we could use a common source directory for everything that
needs to be built as a binary.
Re autoconf: I had always imagined something like this:
1) configure boost/config.hpp
2) recurse though subdirectories - if the directory has its own configure
script then sporn it and don't recurse further, otherwise if the directory
has a makefile.in then generate a makefile from it and continue recursion.
The main aim here is that libraries can have their own configure script if
necessary, and also generate makefiles for example programs / regression
tests etc. Its also easy on the administrator :-) BTW for library builds
of regex++ I had configure generate the library's makefile.in as well -
simply by figuring out what .cpp files are present and then making sure
that all are present in makefile.in, that way if I change the list of cpp
files that need to be built I don't need to rewrite configure or the
makefiles. I haven't tried automating this for win32 compilers - but I'm
sure it can be done. BTW while MS's cl.exe can just about be configured
with GNU configure, Borlands bcc32.exe can't be (command line options
aren't quite compatible).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk